lpetrich

Again, Radorth does not tell us whether the example of Blaise Pascal makes him want to be a Jansenist. Jansenism was sort-of Catholic Calvinism; it was declared a heresy by the Church.

But this is someone who has not told us whether the example of Isaac Newton has made him want to reject the Trinity and believe that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

Mageth

I must ask. How is it most free countries just happen to have lots of Christians, given that they can be anything they want? Is it possible the Gospel wins more hearts and minds? Will the Soviet Union become more atheist or more Christian with time? How about China, now that the NT is (supposedly) available. Will the Christian population increase more rapidly, or the Wiccan/neo-Pagan/Muslim population?

Islam is growing faster than xianity. Check out <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm" target="_blank">this page</a> and <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm" target="_blank">this page.</a>

And there's this interesting quote:

"The percentage of Christians in the world has remained almost constant for decades."

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Devilnaut

Radorth:


Avoiding what issue? Is the issue that I should find the fact that smart people believe in Xianity to be some sort of compelling evidence in its own right? You wish!

So what are these reasons? Refresh my memory! Many things have been stated a thousand times, and all of those that fall under the category of "evidence for God" I have found less than persuasive, so I'm not sure how to figure out exactly which ones you're referring to. It would help me greatly to know which evidences for deity existence have been found to be acceptable by these brilliant men.

Radorth, why do I need to be brilliant to properly examine evidence for God's existence? I have never encountered any that I've found to be persuasive, and likewise I've never encountered any that I have found confusing. So why would I need to place trust in the opinion of anyone else on this matter?


By the way, what's a "different standard of reason"?


And pardon me for saying, Radorth, but this kind of stinks. The fact that you're interested only in examining the conclusions of others rather than the evidence itself doesn't speak well for the rationality of your position.

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Radorth

You're way off the mark bub. I never read any of these people before my conversion. My faith is based on my own thinking and my own conclusions, and was based on God's personal and undeniable response to my bold and humble prayer you have never prayed I'm sure. I've simply shown that lots of highly intelligent and rational people believe in God, because you keep harping about how "irrational" theists are (by definition), and because maybe it will dawn on you that you that wisdom is not the offspring of "rational" thinking.

Rad

Devilnaut

Radorth, theism is irrational. It's not exactly a friggin secret. There aren't any good arguments for God, there is no evidence besides personal witness. You even include this caveat in your post by making sure to say that God's answer to your "personal prayer" is one of your reasons for believing.

Radorth

Just like there's no evidence Jesus existed, right? I suggest "personal witness" tells us most of what we know about history. Perhaps those who learn nothing from it need too much proof.

One of the reasons so many believe the "personal witness" of the NT is that they cannot rationally accept alternative theories, which are more amazing and CONTRADICTORY than anything or any miracle recorded in the Gospels. So yes it is perfectly rational. Skeptics arguments are self-cancelling, and boil down to "Well I didn't see it, so it must not exist." Agnosticism borders on rational. Atheism does not.

Nice try though.

Rad

lpetrich

People have also had such direct experience of deities that Radorth considers pure fiction. Back in the pagan Greco-Roman world, people would have dreams and visions of the deities of Mt. Olympus -- something that skeptics like Lucretius had struggled to explain.

And Catholics have had lots and lots of visions of the Virgin Mary, whom Radorth treats with total disrespect.

Devilnaut

Radorth, just to make things abuntantly clear for anyone reading..


The evidence for the existence of the Xian god is:

The bible
The logical arguments for God's existence, such as the ontological argument, moral argument, etc.'
Personal eyewitness testimony


Now are you saying that (since the logical arguments are fallacious and I have never had any personal experience with God) the bible is enough evidence on its own to render the non-existence of God "more amazing and CONTRADICTORY than anything or any miracle.."??

When you say ridiculously extreme things like this to try to support your case it becomes somewhat obvious that you're not being entirely honest. You don't see me going around saying that theists are dumber than any person or even animal to have ever existed in the universe, just to try to sound convincing, do you?

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Radorth

But more than half of all skeptics seem to think so, and do you ever rebuke them for calling us stupid or irrational?

Regardless, the intent of my arguments is not to show skeptics are stupid, but rather that that any philosophy which denies the essential historicity of the Gospels is based on the same "wishful thinking" skeptics accuse Christians of. And in that sense I would agree that brilliant people do believe and argue nonsense on both sides. We hear "Well i just think Newton compartmentalized his thinking." We don't know anything of the sort, It is just as likely that a perfectly intelligent and rational person like Newton would (perhaps secretly for a time) consider ahistorical theories and conclude they would be as Durant concluded, "more incredible than anything recorded in the Gospels." That would be a better explanation for the writings of a Locke, a Pascal, or a Newton.

There's plenty of faith employed on both sides. I mean it's not like a large body of skeptics agreed on a consistent and simple theory based on provable assumptions. Far from it.

Rad

lpetrich

Radorth, have Newton and Locke made you want to become an Anglican/Episcopalian?

Has Newton made you want to become an Arian (Son subordinate to Father)?

And has Pascal made you want to become a Jansenist? (sort-of Catholic Calvinist)

I note that Pascal's mathematics output dropped precipitously when he became a born-again Jansenist; he once did a mathematics problem to suppress the pain of a toothache, but that was it.